Searching \ for 'An idea for faster upstream rates[OT]' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=
Search entire site for: 'An idea for faster upstream rates[OT]'.

Truncated match.
PICList Thread
'An idea for faster upstream rates[OT]'
2000\05\20@183429 by Andrew Seddon

picon face
I just came up with an idea and wanted some opinions on it. Basically I was
just reading an article about the emerging internet bandwidth technologies
and every single one of them had a much faster downstream than upstream
rate. Some of them with 40:1 ratios. This is bad if you wish to run
e-commerce servers on site etc... So here`s my plan to sort this out.

The ISP would continually transmit numbers 1 through 16, when the client
received the number it wanted to send it would reply.

Now thinking about this quickly it could definitely speed up the upstream,
but like I said it just occurred to me so feel free to pick holes.

2000\05\20@193323 by Dale Botkin

flavicon
face
On Sat, 20 May 2000, Andrew Seddon wrote:

> I just came up with an idea and wanted some opinions on it. Basically I was
> just reading an article about the emerging internet bandwidth technologies
> and every single one of them had a much faster downstream than upstream
> rate. Some of them with 40:1 ratios. This is bad if you wish to run
> e-commerce servers on site etc... So here`s my plan to sort this out.
>
> The ISP would continually transmit numbers 1 through 16, when the client
> received the number it wanted to send it would reply.
>
> Now thinking about this quickly it could definitely speed up the upstream,
> but like I said it just occurred to me so feel free to pick holes.

The reason ISPs are so intensely interested in asymmetrical connections
such as ADSL is to keep people from running e-commerce servers, porno web
servers, pirate software ftp sites, and other bandwidth hogs.  They're
selling retail, end-user access to the Internet, which means lots of
downstream speed and very little upsteam.  If you need lots of upstream
speed, you're probably not the customer they're after.

Of course, you CAN get lots of upstream speed too...  but you pay for
commercial service.  This is problematic for the little guy, of course,
and there is a point below which it's simply not cost effective to pay for
commercial service, so you put up with limited upstream bandwidth.  I know
my cable modem goes like a bat out of hell downstream, but upstream is
throttled to 128Kbps.

Dale
---
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny ..."
               -- Isaac Asimov

2000\05\20@201519 by vrf.craig

flavicon
face
Upstream is not a problem if you're on optimum online from cablevision.  I got 10 mbps downstream, 1.5 mbps out.  I can send one megabyte in 20 seconds.  Phenomenal.  Hopefully in 5 years the telephone companies will be buried, and that's payback for decades of robbing everyone without ridiculous fees.  Voice over IP with a cable modem will mature soon.

Good luck with your upstream, I just got lucky with the cable modem rollout.

And, previously, I had both infoSpeed DSL and a DirecPC.  Cable beats them all hands down... at least optimum online.

C.
 {Original Message removed}

2000\05\21@112949 by piclist.com

face picon face
My experience has been that DSL (at least from Pacific Bell) was a
mis-represented, incapable, unsupported, joke. Cox Cable @Home (currently at
my house) and Time-Warner's Road Runner Cable Internet service (last two job
sites) were clean, smooth, fast and well supported. Very much worth the
(small) price difference. Amazingly good service for a "shared connection"
<GRIN> I guess the fact that PacBell is using that argument says something
about the level of customer they are targeting.

Now, having pissed off all the DSL users on the PICList, I do understand
that A) DSL may be available in more locations than Cable B) mine is just
one set of experiences and others may have had better luck with DSL. C) just
because PacBell uses an ad that anyone who had one ounce of understanding
about the internet would just laugh at, doesn't mean that all DSL users are
that dumb and finally D) being uneducated doesn't make one any less, as long
as we are all seeking education.

And for anyone who isn't sure what the hell I'm talking about: Pacific Bell
internet has been advertising that the major advantage of DSL over Cable is
that the DSL is a separate circuit from you all the way to the central
office where the "connection to the internet" occurs and that the cable
"shared connection" can cause serious slowdowns in service if your neighbors
all get on the net at the same time. They seem to think that their customers
will complexly miss the fact that the entire internet is a "shared
connection" and that PacBell is still "sharing" the connection between all
the DSL end-runs and the internet at each of the Central Offices. Any
success they have had with that type of lie is a sad comment on public
education.


{Original Message removed}

2000\05\21@124046 by Jeff Frohwein

flavicon
face
"piclist.com" wrote:
> And for anyone who isn't sure what the hell I'm talking about: Pacific Bell
> internet has been advertising that the major advantage of DSL over Cable is
> that the DSL is a separate circuit from you all the way to the central
> office where the "connection to the internet" occurs and that the cable
> "shared connection" can cause serious slowdowns in service if your neighbors
> all get on the net at the same time. They seem to think that their customers
> will complexly miss the fact that the entire internet is a "shared
> connection" and that PacBell is still "sharing" the connection between all
> the DSL end-runs and the internet at each of the Central Offices. Any
> success they have had with that type of lie is a sad comment on public
> education.

The way I understand it (someone please correct me if I'm wrong) there
is a non-shared path between your location and the central office if you
use DSL. It is true that many DSL services are "shared" (i.e. you do not
get a full bandwidth guaranteed, 7/24/356 connection to a major internet
backbone unless you pay a big premium for this direct backbone connection)
but this sharing occurs at the central office (or between them and the
internet backbone if they do not have a direct, backbone connection.)
To do this that have to actively monitor and do load balancing so that
you always get the guaranteed minimum upload/download data rates
(depending on your contract).
Due to this fact, they can solve congestion problems between you and the
internet backbone (assuming they have a direct, backbone connection) at the
central office which may involve a relatively minimum configuration change.

Cable modems have a "tremendous" data rate advantage on no or light load
cable loops. The problems here come in when too many people are sharing
your cable loop. The only way you can solve this problem is to send
technicians out in the field and break this single loop up into two
or more loops. This can possibly get expensive to do so they may be
resistant to doing this unless your minimum, guaranteed data rates
(if any) are being compromised or unless they get an extreme number
of complaints.

Jeff

2000\05\21@132616 by piclist.com

face picon face
The cost of splitting the cable loop is no more than the cost of splitting
up the connection between the central office bound DSL "end-runs" and the
uplink service provider. Well... except maybe the travel time involved. Its
the same exact topology network wise. The only difference is the geographic
layout of the network. In one case, all the connections come together at the
central office, and in the other all the connections come together in the
field. NO DIFFERENCE. Prove me wrong.

And while the cable companies aren't as competitive as they could be, the
are much more interested in customer service than the phone company. They
are smaller monopolies. <GRIN> The day they offer local phone service in my
area, PacBell will be "ripping out" the phone wire.

James Newton
spam_OUTjamesnewtonTakeThisOuTspamgeocities.com
1-619-652-0593 phone


{Original Message removed}

2000\05\21@190940 by paulb

flavicon
face
piclist.com wrote:

> They are smaller monopolies. <GRIN> The day they offer local phone
> service in my area, PacBell will be "ripping out" the phone wire.

 All very well for your guys to talk - over here, (AU) AFAIK, cable is
downlink only - every transaction in the other direction involves a 25
cent call on the 'phone line - which of course is *not* mentioned as
part of the costs.

 Or have I got this wrong?
--
 Cheers,
       Paul B.

2000\05\21@195340 by John te Lintelo

flavicon
face
Nope, both Telstra and Optus cable are bi-directional with a faster downlink
than uplink.  The only net connection I've heard of that required a separate
phone call for uplink is satellite.

Cheers,
John

{Original Message removed}

2000\05\21@224303 by Mike Werner

picon face
John te Lintelo wrote:
> Nope, both Telstra and Optus cable are bi-directional with a faster downlink
> than uplink.  The only net connection I've heard of that required a separate
> phone call for uplink is satellite.

Some cable companies do indeed split the service so that you use the
telephone for uplink and cable modem for downlink.  That's sometimes
referred to as "hybrid" service.  I'm not sure if all cable providers
offer both, but the cable company that supposedly will soon be offering
cable modems locally does.  See:

http://powerlink.adelphia.com/services.html

I tried to find a page with more of an explanation, but Adelphia's sites
are generally a dismal failure at providing info.
--
Mike Werner  KA8YSD           |  "Where do you want to go today?"
                             |  "As far from Redmond as possible!"
'91 GS500E                    |
Morgantown WV                 |  Only dead fish go with the flow.

2000\05\21@235924 by paulb

flavicon
face
John te Lintelo wrote:
> Nope, both Telstra and Optus cable are bi-directional with a faster
> downlink than uplink.  The only net connection I've heard of that
> required a separate phone call for uplink is satellite.

 How much faster?  I'm really suspicious of the deployment here (By the
way, I'm in the country, so we've only got Austel - and not that I have
Austel as high-speed Internet would be the only reason I'd pay for
satellite and I can't offhand think of any high-speed program content on
the Internet that I need that desperately).

 For example just how *much* of the cable currently deployed has back-
channel capability at all?  I understood that most didn't since that
makes it *much* more expensive.  Back-channel must mean fibre
duplication, mustn't it?  And both Internet streaming and even more so,
view-on-demand must require substantial forward channel allocation in
the first place.

 Seems to me that a simple, global forward pre-programmed network is
dead easy and cheap, you have only one main central program server.

 Once you start adding separate program streams to serve sub-areas, you
need sub-servers, and you may also need the back-channel servers and
overall, it requires *much* more infrastructure.  How much of that do
we have here at this point in time?
--
 Cheers,
       Paul B.

2000\05\22@012154 by Plunkett, Dennis

flavicon
face
{Quote hidden}

       OPTUS don't use fibre, just plain old coax! The back channel is a
multiplexed / mulitdrop cable to each and every household. Ever wondered why
the local network has not taken off. If I recall there was a problem with
the possiblity of getting dial tone due to ...
       Yes the cost to transmit at a high rate is born on the householder,
but the telephone companies don't want you to have any chance of actually
ontaining and monitoring the ongoing data (Humm.. this can be done on the
current network)


>   Seems to me that a simple, global forward pre-programmed network is
> dead easy and cheap, you have only one main central program server.
>
       Yes it is and you don't have to worry about clock synchronisation
over the network

>   Once you start adding separate program streams to serve sub-areas, you
> need sub-servers, and you may also need the back-channel servers and
> overall, it requires *much* more infrastructure.  How much of that do
> we have here at this point in time?
> --
>   Cheers,
>         Paul B.
>
>
       Dennis

2000\05\22@021428 by Yiz Garnoff

flavicon
face
scroll down...

"Plunkett, Dennis" wrote:

{Quote hidden}

I have Optus cable which runs under the '@Home' brandname, which I think is very
big in the US, and probably has the same sort of performance we get here.  My
download rate has been as high as 384kbyte/s within Australia, and as good as
100kbyte/s from the US (but rarely worse than about 14kbyte/s).

The upload rate is capped to 16kbyte/s to ensure 'reasonable quality of
service'.  Really I think it is so we can't make ftp sites etc.

There is no telephone line required for any of this, all thru the cable.

>
> >   For example just how *much* of the cable currently deployed has back-
> > channel capability at all?  I understood that most didn't since that

All of it?

>
> > makes it *much* more expensive.  Back-channel must mean fibre
> > duplication, mustn't it?  And both Internet streaming and even more so,
> > view-on-demand must require substantial forward channel allocation in
> > the first place.
> >

>      OPTUS don't use fibre, just plain old coax! The back channel is a
> multiplexed / mulitdrop cable to each and every household. Ever wondered why

Coax seems to be doing an excellent job!  I am sure that adding 'backchannel
capability' is still cheaper than using fibre.

If your interested, the 'Work Order From' they left has this information:
RF Levels
NIU/STU 95.25MHz = 10.9, 471.25MHz = 9.3, 555.25MHz=-6.9, 744.25=4.2
Anyone know what that means?

Also, the DNS says my hub is in Belrose (sydney) and I am in Killara (sydney),
so I wonder how many people are sharing my coax?

>
> the local network has not taken off. If I recall there was a problem with
> the possiblity of getting dial tone due to ...

If they had given me 6 billion dollars to build a cable network, I bet *I* could
have got dial tone!

{Quote hidden}

640kB should be enough for anyone! hehehe ;P

>
> >   Cheers,
> >         Paul B.
> >
> >
>         Dennis

2000\05\22@023922 by Tim Hamel

picon face
<snip>

I believe NIU is Network Interface Unit, and STU is Set-Top Unit. Maybe the
first frequency is the upstream, and the second is downstream?

Regards,

Tim Hamel

In a message dated 5/21/00 11:14:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
yizgarnoffspamspam_OUTOPTUSHOME.COM.AU writes:

> If your interested, the 'Work Order From' they left has this information:
>  RF Levels
>  NIU/STU 95.25MHz = 10.9, 471.25MHz = 9.3, 555.25MHz=-6.9, 744.25=4.2
>  Anyone know what that means?

2000\05\22@115552 by Bennett, Matt

flavicon
face
It is true that a congested local loop can seriously slow down the network-
Take any congested ethernet running TCP/IP, a somewhat faster analogue to
cable modems- once the bandwidth usage gets to 50% of its rated capacity,
throughput goes to the floor because the channel is dominated by retries.

The primary difference between the telephone network and the data network is
that on the telephone network, there is a mechanism to guarantee bandwidth.
When you place a voice call, you've just locked in a 64kbps channel from
your CO to the called parties CO.  Since DSL is on the telephone network, it
is possible that the telephone company can guarantee your bandwidth at least
to your ISP, where it would get lumped together with all the other users.
If they actually do, I don't know.  I do know that my DSL runs great- I run
my own 2 domains off of it, and I get higher (downstream) rates than
advertized.

While I do get my DSL connection from the local baby bell, I do *NOT* use
them as my ISP.  I use a local company that is extremely responsive on the
few times I've had to call them, where they have live 24/7 support, and each
time, they were aware of the problem, in the process of fixing it, and
service was back to normal in minutes.  I have *never* had that type of
service from any telephone company.

{Original Message removed}

2000\05\22@120807 by M. Adam Davis

flavicon
face
The download ratios are not so much a product of technology limitations as they
are a product of 'what can we charge the customer'.  If you have a need for high
upstream bandwidth, you must be a business or making money off it, and we want a
cut of the action.  It's not like the ISP is going to follow your idea, they
have the technology and infrastructure to get you a faster upstream than
downstream, and can tailor it according to your needs.  For instance,
redconnect.com offers from 4Mb/sec up and down down to 320kb/320kb.  They aren't
selling you an internet connection, they are selling you bandwidth.  The
connection and equipment are the same for their 320/320 as it is for their
1.3m/320k.  (btw, redconnect is adsl)

Secondly, if you are serving you need more bandwidth than the cable company can
provide easily, though the cable companies will get faster.

-Adam

Andrew Seddon wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2000\05\22@154653 by jamesnewton

face picon face
The key point is.. again... AFTER the DSL end run reaches the CO, it gets
shared with all the other DSL end runs from your neighborhood just like the
Cable network does. Your connection to the "rest" of the internet is no
faster and is no more immune from overload than the cable connection.
Pacific Bell's ad is a lie, a damn lie, and I understand that they are being
sued for it.

Now, Andy Warren did bring up a valid point which is that if you are trying
to transfer data between people on the same local network, a good router at
the CO could support faster LOCAL transfers than the cable network can.

But for general internet service, DSL can not hope to compete with cable.
Again, I'd love for someone to prove me wrong.

Also, a shielded coax cable can carry much more data, much more reliably
than any twisted pair phone cable and we haven't even started talking about
how long the wires have been in the ground.... or the customer service....
or the mistrust the phone company deserves... or...

---
James Newton @spam@jamesnewtonKILLspamspamgeocities.com 1-619-652-0593
http://techref.massmind.org
All the engineering secrets worth knowing

{Original Message removed}

2000\05\22@191014 by Harold M Hallikainen

picon face
On Mon, 22 May 2000 12:44:30 -0700 James Newton <KILLspamjamesnewtonKILLspamspamPICLIST.COM>
writes:
> The key point is.. again... AFTER the DSL end run reaches the CO, it
> gets
> shared with all the other DSL end runs from your neighborhood just
> like the
> Cable network does. Your connection to the "rest" of the internet is
> no
> faster and is no more immune from overload than the cable
> connection.
> Pacific Bell's ad is a lie, a damn lie, and I understand that they
> are being
> sued for it.
>

       I see it as DSL just moving the bottleneck from one place to another.
It'd be interesting to see a bps versus time of day graph for various
multiplexing points on the net. How many minutes per day is the PacBell
DSL access box at my local CO (and the "pipe from above") saturated
(running at capacity)? At what point does the DSL provider put in a
bigger pipe?  This, of course, is just like plain old telephone service
traffic management... But, it'd be interesting to see what it looks like.
Similarly, how full is the pipe going to my local ISP? When do THEY order
a bigger pipe?
       The CATV companies can increase their data capacity by doing a hybrid
fiber/coax network where only a small neighborhood shares the bandwidth
of the coax. This is the same as shrinking cellular telephone cell sizes
as traffic increases. Eventually we might have a piece of coax going from
the fiber mux to each individual house... Or maybe a separate fiber
circuit to each house?
       On the DSL twisted pair side... DSL speed is limited largely by the
distance from the CO. The phone company also doesn't try to cram 100 or
more TV channels down the same wire like the CATV company does. If
bandwidth from the CO to the subscriber starts to become a problem, they
can do the same thing the CATV companies are doing... Run fiber out to
the neighborhood and demux out to pairs to each subscriber. The've been
doing similar statistical muxing of voice for quite a while as they run
out of pairs from the neighborhood to the CO. Not everyone talks on the
phone at the same time, so they can share some of those pairs amongst
several subscribers...
       So... I have DSL at home and am quite satisfied with it. Here at work
we're a bit far from the CO, so we're looking at CATV...

Harold




FCC Rules Online at http://hallikainen.com/FccRules
Lighting control for theatre and television at http://www.dovesystems.com

________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
dl.http://www.juno.com/get/tagj.

2000\05\22@194414 by Jeff Frohwein

flavicon
face
"piclist.com" wrote:
> And for anyone who isn't sure what the hell I'm talking about: Pacific Bell
> internet has been advertising that the major advantage of DSL over Cable is
> that the DSL is a separate circuit from you all the way to the central
> office where the "connection to the internet" occurs and that the cable
> "shared connection" can cause serious slowdowns in service if your neighbors
> all get on the net at the same time. They seem to think that their customers
> will complexly miss the fact that the entire internet is a "shared
> connection" and that PacBell is still "sharing" the connection between all
> the DSL end-runs and the internet at each of the Central Offices. Any

I was able to dig up a few references that seem to claim the same thing
that Pacific bell is claiming. If someone plans to sue Pacific Bell for
these statements then they will probably have a field day with the following
sites<GRIN>. Various articles/FAQs on advantages of DSL over cable:

www.3com.com/solutions/dsl/dsl_faq.html#6
http://home1.gte.net/jbeardsl/gte/faq.htm#1.7
http://www.vericom.net/MoreFAQ.html
http://www.everythingdsl.com/dsl-vs-cable.pdf
http://www.interspeed.com/support/faq.htm#16
http://accuratetech.com/dslfaq.htm
http://www.linkonline.com/dsl_faqs.html
http://www.interactivenetsys.com/dslfaq.asp
http://www.gv2.net/dsl_faq.html
http://www.eticomm.net/Services/DSL_Center/FAQS/faqs.html

The way I understand it, fiber(or whatever)-to-cable nodes tend to have
a large downstream connection that everyone on that cable node shares.
There seem to be some cable modem access providers that provide dedicated
bandwidth if you pay extra (no one can share your data slot) but this
seems to be something that most don't use or order (probably due to
cost, similar to dedicated DSL links.)

In contrast, "shared DSL" services tend to have many internet *backbone
circuits or slots. For instance, a given "shared DSL" provider might
have 100 4mbits, unshared internet backbone connections.(After you
allocate one of these connections to multiple users then obviously
that connection becomes shared.)

  * The "internet backbone", specifically in the US, tends to be a
   network of the big 5 backbone providers. (I.E. MCI,Sprint,etc)
   The data paths of these backbone providers tends to be so large
   as to seldom provide a bottle neck for internet traffic assuming
   that you have a connection to all 5 providers. (If one is down
   then you can use one of the other major providers.) As a result,
   congestion in packet transport tends to occur in trying to get onto
   a backbone and trying to get off of a backbone. (Similar to how
   interstates or autobahns work for cars.) If a DSL service has a
   sufficient size direct connect to a backbone then in theory you
   will remove one side of bottleneck problems.
    The net (no pun intended :) effect is that the US internet backbone,
   itself, doesn't appear to be a "shared" network in terms of bottleneck
   or performance.


On each 4mbit connection there might 20 users. If that 4 mbit connection
becomes saturated to the point where they are not able to guarantee
all 20 subscribers minimum upload & minimum download data rates
during average peak periods (Our local DSL provider guarantees a
256k upsteam path even during peak periods, for instance.) then
they will move subscribers from one shared 4 mbit connection to
another to "load balance" each 4mbit connection to eliminate saturation
on any one 4mbit connection. How dynamically this load balancing
occurs might vary greatly depending on the DSL provider. For instance,
I have no idea if they are able to preserve your IP when moving you
from one connection to another and this might be one hindering factor.

As far as cable modem upload / download speed differences, this can
be due in part to problems using cable which seem to be explained
fairly well in these articles:

www.cabledatacomnews.com/cmic/cmic2.html
http://www.cabledatacomnews.com/cmic/cmic1.html

> The cost of splitting the cable loop is no more than the cost of splitting
> up the connection between the central office bound DSL "end-runs" and the
> uplink service provider. Well... except maybe the travel time involved. Its

Many of the methods I have read suggest that in order
to split a cable loop (node) into two circuits that often
a fiber-to-cable node is required. Here's a good overview
of what seems to be a popular method:

http://www.cabledatacomnews.com/cmic/diagram.html

The Sprint FAQs here seems to imply that installing
new fiber-to-cable nodes can be very expensive if I
read it right:

http://www.sprintbiz.com/bizpark/dsl/faqs.html#advantages

Anyone please correct any flaws they might see in
any of the above info,

Jeff

2000\05\22@194826 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
>>   I see it as DSL just moving the bottleneck from one place to another.

Oh common.  ALL of networking consists of moving bottlenecks from one
place to another.  Some bottlenecks are inherent (say, a 9600bps dialup
link to the end user) and others are only really bottlenecks if they're
allowed to become oversubscribed.  You can't tell much of ANYTHING about
the expected performance of an end-user network connection without
knowing about the other pieces between you and where you want to talk
to, AND the ISP's policies on oversubscription AND how close they are to
being oversubscribed.  You DO know that your DSL link will not be
oversubscribed, (because it's just you), but that's a pretty tiny piece
of data compared to the big picture.  (likewise, a dialin based ISP
gives you a pretty good idea when they start hitting their limits,
because you start getting busy signals.)

I'll withhold the lecture on the "Ethernet is really only good for
6Mbps" statement, other than reminding people that it's not true.

BillW

2000\05\23@085126 by M. Adam Davis

flavicon
face
There is a lot of truth to the statement that DSL is faster than cable for a
number of reasons, but it is not very much faster, and in the end I would likely
choose whichever is less expensive per kb of bandwidth.

One of the main issues with cable is that everyone is connected to the same
cable, and there are NO switches/hubs/routers between you and the neighbors,
which means collisions (which are not infrequent) cause dropped packets, which
ends up being lost bandwidth.  The next minor issue is that many cable companies
have jumped into the ISP business with little planning and end up with a poor
product (but that is not related to the technical aspects of raw bandwidth)

With DSL, your connection goes to a router or switch which then holds data until
its outgoing line is free.  If there are collisions, they happen on the faster
lines inside the phone company, but they never end up eating up your bandwidth.
(diagrams at the end of this message)

Lastly, the cable line has so much bandwisth which is available, and DSL has
only so much bandwidth available.  Cable has more, but it's not being used
(yet).  The phone company and the cable company have about the same bandwidth at
their respective offices.  Therefore the faster pipe you have to their office,
the better, and it has always been that way.  What is limiting your access?  The
line from you to your ISP.  Once it gets there the bandwidth can be considered
unlimited, especially with decent caching and routing (I know that technically
it's not but I don't want to go into detail about it, for this instance it is
basically true).  A dedicated DSL line to the office during the busiest hours
*will* be faster than a cable line during the busiest hours.

But, there again, it won't be that much of a difference in speed, and in the end
it won't matter as both technologies will improve and eventually the one that is
more available and less expensive will 'win'.

-Adam


Cable  Cable  Cable  Cable  Cable  Cable    -----+  <-- Cable office
User   User   User   User   User   User     -----+  <-- internal high
 +------+------+------+------+------+-----------+  <-- speed network
   ^^^ All of the collisions happen here ^^^    |
       Bad planning also puts too much          +----<-> Cable office
       load on this relativiely low                      internet
       bandwidth line.                                   connection

DSL User ---------------------------+   <--- Phone office high speed
                                   |   <--- internal connection
DSL User ---------------------------+        Any collisions which
                                   |        happen (infrequent)
DSL User ---------------------------+        happen here, and have
                                   |        little effect on the
DSL User ---------------------------+        total internet bandwidth.
                                   |
DSL User ---------------------------+
                                   |
DSL User ---------------------------+
                                   |
                                   +---------<-> Phone office internet
                                                 connection

Given the same connection speed from each office to the internet, each user on
the DSL line will have more access to that bandwidth than each user on the cable
line due to collisions (and other factors).  As far as user bandwidth is
concerned, the cable line with the cable modems that are available today does
NOT have much more bandwidth than the DSL line, and when you put 10-15 active
users on the cable line it becomes saturated.  The cable is able to give more
bandwidth, but cable modems aren't up to that task.

James Newton wrote:
>
> The key point is.. again... AFTER the DSL end run reaches the CO, it gets
> shared with all the other DSL end runs from your neighborhood just like the
> Cable network does. Your connection to the "rest" of the internet is no
> faster and is no more immune from overload than the cable connection.
> Pacific Bell's ad is a lie, a damn lie, and I understand that they are being
> sued for it.

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2000 , 2001 only
- Today
- New search...